Skip to content


Narsingrav Ramchandra Vs. Luxumanrav - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtMumbai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1877)ILR1Bom318
AppellantNarsingrav Ramchandra
RespondentLuxumanrav
Excerpt:
act xx of l864, sections 11 and 15 - collector--act xiv of 1869, section 32--officer of government--jurisdiction. - section 31(4) (since repealed) :[tarun chatterjee & h.l.dattu, jj] jurisdiction of high court - respondent, a government company, chartered appellants vessel to carry rock phosphate from togo to west coast india - dispute arose between parties - under agreement, respondent had chosen mumbai as port of delivery vessel carrying rock phosphate was delivered at port of bombay - application filed by respondent earlier before delhi high court for appointment of certain individual as arbitrator had become infructuous because of his demise held, high court of bombay, is not correct in rejecting arbitration petition filed by appellant on ground of lack of jurisdiction. .....judge is precluded by act xiv of 1869, section 32, from entertaining a suit in which an officer of government in his official capacity, is a defendant. for the appellant it is contended that the collector is acting as the officer of the court which appoints him administrator of the estate of the infant, and not as an officer of government. but we think that sections 11 and 15 of act xx of 1864, taken together, show that the collector, when appointed to take charge of the estate of a minor, is so in his capacity as collector, and, therefore, as an officer of government. when a collector is transferred to another district, his successor as collector succeeds also as administrator of the estates of minors which had been entrusted to the transferred collector, and no new order of.....
Judgment:

Michael Westropp, C.J.

1. The appellant complains that the plaint in this suit originally instituted against the father of the minor defendant, has been improperly returned to the appellant, since the minor and the administrator of his estate under Act XX of 1864 (the Collector) have been made parties, on the ground that the Subordinate Judge is precluded by Act XIV of 1869, Section 32, from entertaining a suit in which an officer of Government in his official capacity, is a defendant. For the appellant it is contended that the Collector is acting as the officer of the Court which appoints him administrator of the estate of the infant, and not as an officer of Government. But we think that Sections 11 and 15 of Act XX of 1864, taken together, show that the Collector, when appointed to take charge of the estate of a minor, is so in his capacity as Collector, and, therefore, as an officer of Government. When a Collector is transferred to another district, his successor as Collector succeeds also as administrator of the estates of minors which had been entrusted to the transferred Collector, and no new order of the Civil Court is necessary for that purpose.

2. We affirm the order with costs, but with this addition, that all proceedings besides the plaint which have been had in this suit in the Subordinate Judge's Court be transferred to the District Court.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //